Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration

Language Learning and Technology

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 68-99

  Belz, Julie A ^a,b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Center for Language Acquisition   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346049354     PISSN: 10943501     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (104)

1. Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York: William Morrow.
2. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bausch, M., Christ, H., & Krumm, H. (Eds.). (1997). Interkulturelles Lernen im Fremdsprachenunterricht [Intercultural learning in foreign language teaching]. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.
4. Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455-464
5. Belz, J. A. (2001). Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching. ReCALL, 13(2), 213-231.
6. Belz, J. A. (2002a) The myth of the deficient communicator. LanguageTeaching Research, 6(1), 59-82.
7. Belz, J. A. (2002b). Social dimensions of telecollaborative language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60-81. Retrieved March 12, 2003, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/BELZ/
8. Belz, J. A. (2002c). Identity, deficiency, and first language use in foreign language education. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of the foreign language classroom: Contributions of the native, non-native, and near-native speaker (pp. 209-249). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
9. Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic graduation and the development of intercultural competence in Internetmediated foreign language learning. Unpublished manuscript, the Pennsylvania State University.
10. Belz, J. A., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2002). Deutsch-amerikanische Telekollaboration im Fremdsprachenunterricht - Lernende im Kreuzfeuer der institutionellen Zwänge [German-American telecollaboration in foreign language teaching - learners in the crossfire of institutional constraints]. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 35(1), 68-78.
11. Belz, J. A., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German-American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 71-89.
12. Belz, J. A., & Reinhardt, J. (2003). Foreign language play in computer-mediated foreign language study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
13. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
14. Bredella, L. (2000). The significance of intercultural understanding in the foreign language classroom. In T. Harden & A. Witte (Eds.), The notion of intercultural understanding in the context of German as a foreign language (pp. 145-66). Bern: Peter Lang.
15. Bredella, L. (1999). Zielsetzungen interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterrichts [Goals for intercultural foreign language teaching]. In L. Bredella & E. Delanoy (Eds.), Interkultureller Fremdsprachenunterricht (pp. 85-120). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
16. Bredella, L., & Delanoy, W. (Eds.). (1999). Interkultureller Fremdsprachenunterricht [Intercultural foreign language teaching]. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
17. Burton, D. (1982). Through glass darkly: Through dark glasses. In R. Carter (Ed.), Language and literature (pp. 194-214). London: Allen & Unwin.
18. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
19. Byrnes, H. (1986). Interactional style in German and American conversations. Text, 2(1), 189-206.
20. Byrnes, H. (2001). Reconsidering graduate students' education as teachers: "It takes a department!" The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 512-530.
21. Cain, A., & Zarate, G. (1996). The role of training courses in developing openness to otherness: From tourism to ethnography. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 9(1), 66-83.
22. Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. L. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261-272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
23. Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 17-31.
24. Clyne, M. (1998). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German. In J. Cheshire & P. Trudgill (Eds.), The sociolinguistics reader (pp. 315-347). London: Arnold.
25. Cook, V. (1991). The poverty of stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research, 7(2), 103-117.
26. Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42(4), 557-591.
27. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge, England: CUP.
28. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.
29. Edmondson, W., & House, J. (1998). Interkulturelles Lernen: Ein überflüssiger Begriff [Intercultural learning: A superfluous construct]. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung, 9(2), 161-81.
30. Edwards, J. (1994). Multilingualism. London: Routledge.
31. Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell
32. Fandrych, C., & Graefen, G. (2002). Text commenting devices in German and English academic articles. Multilingua, 21(1), 17-43.
33. Fantini, A. (1995). Introduction: Language, culture, and world view: Exploring the nexus. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19, 143-153.
34. Fischer, G. (1998). E-mail in foreign language teaching. Towards the creation of virtual classrooms. Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg Medien.
35. nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
36. Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura Project. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 55-102. Retrieved March 12, 2003, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/furstenberg/
37. Gee, J. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis. Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
38. Giese, M. (1998). Self without body: Textual self-representation in an electronic community. FirstMonday, 3(4). Retrieved March 12, 2003, from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_4/giese/
39. Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Toward a theory of educational assessment. London: Falmer Press.
40. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
41. Gutiérrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counter-script, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 445-471.
42. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Arnold.
43. nd ed.). London: Arnold.
44. Harden, T. (2000). The limits of understanding. In T. Harden & A. Witte (Eds.), The notion of intercultural understanding in the context of German as a foreign language (pp. 103-23). Bern: Peter Lang.
45. Harden, T., & Witte, A. (2000). The notion of intercultural understanding in the context of German as a foreign language. Bern: Peter Lang.
46. Harré, R. (2001). The discursive turn in social psychology. In D. Schriffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 688-706). London: Blackwell.
47. nd ed.). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Verlag.
48. Härtling, P. (1990). Ben loves Anna. (J. H. Auerbach, Trans.). Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press.
49. Herring, S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication on the Internet. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information and science technology (pp. 109-168). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
50. House, J. (2000). Understanding misunderstanding: A pragmatic-discourse approach to analysing mismanaged rapport in talk across cultures. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking. Managing relations across cultures (pp. 145-65). London: Continuum.
51. House, J. (1997). Zum Erwerb interkulturelles Kompetenz im Unterricht des Deutschen als Fremdsprache [On the acquisition of intercultural competence in the teaching of German as a foreign language]. Zeitschrift fuer interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 1(3), 21pp. Available from http://www.ualberta.ca/~german/ejournal/house.htm
52. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157-185). The Hague: Mouton.
53. Hu, A. (1999). Interkulturelles Lernen. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit der Kritik an einem unstrittenen Konzept [Intercultural learning: A discussion of the critique of a controversial concept]. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung, 10(2), 277-303.
54. Hu, A.(2000). Intercultural Learning and its difficult aspects - An analysis of the criticism in relation to a controversial subject. In T. Harden & A. Witte (Eds.), The notion of intercultural understanding in the context of German as a foreign language (pp. 75-102). Bern: Peter Lang.
55. Iedema, R., Feez, S., & White, P. (1994). Media literacy. Sydney: Disadvantaged Schools Program, NSW Department of School Education.
56. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
57. Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
58. Kadir, D. (2003). Introduction: America and its studies. PMLA, 118(1), 9-24.
59. Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441-454.
60. Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
61. Kern, R.G. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail exchanges to explore personal histories in two cultures. In M. Warshauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 105-119). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
62. Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
63. Kinginger, C. (1998). Videoconferencing as access to spoken French. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 502-513.
64. Kinginger, C. (in press). Communicative foreign language teaching through telecollaboration. In O. St. John, K. van Esch, & E. Schalkwijk (Eds.), New insights into foreign language learning and teaching. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.
65. Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1983). Moral stages: A current formulation and response to critics. Basel, Switzerland: Karger.
66. Kotthoff, H. (1989). So nah und doch so fern [So close and yet so far]. Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 16(4), 448-459.
67. Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
68. Kramsch, C. (1998). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M. Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography (pp. 16-31). New York: Cambridge University Press.
69. Kramsch, C., Cain, A., & Murphy-Lejeune, E. (1996). Why should language teachers teach culture? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 9(1), 99-107.
70. Kumaravadivelu, E. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 27-48.
71. Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 8, 183-228.
72. Layder, D. (1993). New strategies in social research. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
73. Lomicka, L. (2001). A new perspective on the world - A qualitative study of learning French in an accelerated language classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
74. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
75. Martin, J. (1995). Interpersonal meaning, persuasion and public discourse: Packing semiotic punch. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 15, 33-67.
76. Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp. 142-175). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
77. McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London: Longman.
78. Mendes, S. (Director). (1999). American Beauty [Motion picture]. United States: DreamWorks.
79. Müller-Hartmann, A. (1999). Die Integration der neuen Medien in den schulishcen Fremdsprachenunterricht: Interkulturelles Lernen und die Folgen in E-Mail-Projekten [The integration of the new media into secondary foreign language learning: Intercultural learning and the consequences of email projects]. Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen, 28, 58-79.
80. O'Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the "other side": A qualitative analysis of intercultural learning in networked exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 118-144. Available in this issue at http://llt.msu.edu/volume7number2/odowd/
81. Pelletieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
82. Rings, L. (1995). Americans and Germans: Close encounters of the crosscultural kind. A book of interviews. Arlington: University of Texas at Arlington. Available from http://langlab.uta.edu/German/ lana.rings/Americans.And.Germans/toc.html
83. Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350.
84. Schmid, H.-C. (Director). (1995). Nach fünf im Urwald [It's a Jungle Out There; Motion picture]. Germany: Senator Film.
85. Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology, and point of view. London: Routledge.
86. Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Retrieved March 12, 2003, from http://llt.msu.edu/volumen4number1/sotillo/
87. nd ed.). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
88. Teles, L. (2000). Investigating the role of the instructor in online collaborative environments. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University.
89. Tella, S. (1996). Foreign languages and modern technology: Harmony or hell? In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawai'i symposium (pp. 3-17). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
90. Thorne, S. (1999). An activity theoretical analysis of foreign language electronic discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
91. Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38-67. Available in this issue at http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/
92. Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1996). Explicitness vs. implicitness of argumentation: An intercultural comparison. Multilingua, 15(3), 257-273.
93. nd ed.). London: Routledge.
94. von der Emde, S., Schneider, J., & Kötter, M. (2001). Technically speaking: Transforming language learning through virtual learning environments (MOOs). The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 210-225.
95. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
96. Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
97. Walther, J., & D'Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computermediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 323-45.
98. Warschauer, M. (Ed.) (1996). Telecollaboration in foreign language learning. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
99. Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 470-481.
100. Warschauer, M. (1998). Online learning in sociocultural context. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(3), 68-88.
101. Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2000). Network-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
102. White, P. (1998). Telling media tales: The news story as rhetoric. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney. Available at http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/AppraisalKeyReferences.html
103. White, P. (2002). Introductory tour through appraisal theory. Retrieved March 12, 2003, from the Appraisal Website: http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/AppraisalGuide/Framed/Frame.htm
104. Wierzbicka, A. (1998). German cultural scripts: public signs as a key to social attitudes and cultural values. Discourse and Society, 9(2), 241-282.